| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
>>I dunno if it's really big work to have a look at one site to see if |
| 3 |
>>there are ebuilds you missed when they were updated. |
| 4 |
>>It was not my intention to make really more work. It was just to find a faster |
| 5 |
>>way for outdated ebuilds getting updated. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> There is really only one way to do this. Figure out how to give the |
| 8 |
> developers more time to develop. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Right. I think most maintainers keep on top of what's happening with |
| 11 |
their charges. It's not that they've missed the fact that a new version |
| 12 |
has been released, it's that they haven't had the time to bump it yet. |
| 13 |
This might be less true for pkgs that don't have a single maintainer but |
| 14 |
are covered by a herd, but even in that case it's a matter of having |
| 15 |
time, not being oblivious that there's an update. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Having to search through bugs.gentoo.org, plus some external site, would |
| 18 |
> increase the time needed to find packages in need of upgrade, as some |
| 19 |
> will be filed as bugs, which would need to be resolved, so they would |
| 20 |
> have to be searched for *anyway* in bugzilla. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> The most productive thing you could do, would be to figure out a simple |
| 23 |
> way of testing ebuilds, marking them as tested, and assigning them to |
| 24 |
> the proper parties quicker than is being done now. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I like this. It could probably be done through keywording, and in fact |
| 27 |
the keywords are already there (ebuild and tested)[1]. They just never |
| 28 |
get used. ;) Maybe raising people's (user's) awareness of their |
| 29 |
existence and how to use them properly would help. I'd be willing to |
| 30 |
write up a Bugzilla user-guide if there's any interest in it; I've been |
| 31 |
meaning to write one for the wiki/forum anyways. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
As for what happens after a ebuild is tested, I see a couple options. |
| 34 |
Devs can always just keep doing what they do now and just use the tested |
| 35 |
keyword as a handy at-a-glance reference. Or, you could implement the |
| 36 |
Bugzilla request system[2][3] to allow a tester to flag a bug ready for |
| 37 |
review by a developer. I think this would both improve the turn-around |
| 38 |
time on bumps and save some time for the devs by letting them know that |
| 39 |
any such request both has an ebuild attached and that ebuild has been |
| 40 |
tested by the community. Adding a review request flag does add a little |
| 41 |
more complexity to the process of using bugzilla, but with proper user |
| 42 |
documentation I think the benefit will outweigh the cost. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> What we really need is to have the AT program extended from just amd64 |
| 45 |
> to every arch, including x86 (which desperately needs an arch team). |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Really? What does such a team do? |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
--de. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
[1]https://bugs.gentoo.org/describekeywords.cgi |
| 53 |
[2]http://www.bugzilla.org/features/#rs |
| 54 |
[3]https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/flag-help.html |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives